This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Last night’s Channel 4 News debate featuring young people talking Brexit didn’t exactly go to plan. In fact it was a complete nightmare if you are a London-based lefty Remainer who has convinced yourself that all young people oppose leaving the EU.

Instead of youngsters raging to stop Brexit and calling for a second referendum, articulate young people made the pro-Leave case and warned against ignoring the referendum result. Jon Snow appeared increasingly agitated.

coffee wrote:BRILLIANT: Young Brexiteers take back control in Channel 4 News debate.

Pity many were so ignorant.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

More vile hatred pouring out of the sewer of Britain’s Far Left, as a ranting activist calls for the prime minister to shoot herself while John McDonnell stands by. Yet to hear any condemnation from @OwenJones84

More chaos on the streets of Paris as armed cops clash with #GiletsJaunes protesters who are fed up with their pathetic EU lapdog leader @EmmanuelMacron. It doesn't look like this unrest will end any time soon!

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

I dont know, on the matter of brexit I would like to think I am on centre right, so its either May's deal or no deal for now is good enough for me.

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

EDWARD Heath “misled” members of the public when he took Britain into the European Community, as all his promises about a strong economy in the Common Market turned out to be false and the UK ended up losing half a million jobs instead, Tony Benn fired in a throwback interview.

coffee wrote:Theresa May to warn Britain is more likely to stay in the EU than leave under No Deal if MPs reject her plan: Brexit News for Monday 14 January

Fantastic news, isn't it coffee?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Anyway coffee, how many racist UKIP MPs do you think will vote for May's deal tomorrow?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

WATCH | Former Brexit Secretary @DominicRaab: "You've got to balance the short-term risk [of leaving on WTO terms] with what I think would be devastating economic and democratic consequences for us if we sign up to this deal. It's a bad deal and Britain can do better!"

WATCH | @GiselaStuart on the non-legally binding assurances over the backstop from Brussels: "By the time that question arises, this promise will have been given by an old Commission. A new Commission may well feel it is not bound by those promises. It needs have a legal force!"

So, coffee, do you think the defeat of May's deal tonight will be an all-time record defeat of a Government?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

How interesting. A whole slew of Tory MPs cam eon the radio yesterday and today, stating that MPs are capable of changing their minds in the face of new information and, therefore, should be able to vote again. But the same MPs believe that "the people" should not be given that opportunity. How astonishingly patronising, even by MPs' abominable standards, to imply that "the people" are just too damned stupid to be capable of changing their minds in the face of new information.

Steve

Quantum Theory:The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Tetenterre wrote:How interesting. A whole slew of Tory MPs cam eon the radio yesterday and today, stating that MPs are capable of changing their minds in the face of new information and, therefore, should be able to vote again. But the same MPs believe that "the people" should not be given that opportunity. How astonishingly patronising, even by MPs' abominable standards, to imply that "the people" are just too damned stupid to be capable of changing their minds in the face of new information.

What? Tories are hypocrites? Who knew?

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?